An article “BRITISH TRIBUNAL FLIP-FLOPS ON WRONGFUL SURVEILLANCE OF AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL” by Jenna McLaughlin on 2 July 2015 reveals that a British tribunal (Investigatory Powers Tribunal) in charge of investigating public abuse of surveillance admitted that the U.K. government’s spy agency illegally retained communications it swept up from Amnesty International.
Amnesty International protest in London by Malcolm Park/Getty
In the e-mail sent to Amnesty late Wednesday, the president of the tribunal said the unlawful retention of communications it had previously said affected an Egyptian group had in fact affected Amnesty. Amnesty International responded understandably with outrage. In a press release, it described the tribunal’s email as a “shocking revelation” that “made no mention of when or why Amnesty International was spied on, or what was done with the information obtained.”
“The revelation that the UK government has been spying on Amnesty International highlights the gross inadequacies in the UK’s surveillance legislation,” Salil Shetty, Amnesty’s secretary general, said in a statement. He added something even more important: “If they hadn’t stored our communications for longer than they were allowed to by internal guidelines, we would never even have known. What’s worse, this would have been considered perfectly lawful.” The tribunal did not rule that the U.K. spy agency’s initial interception of communications was unlawful; just that retention rules had been violated.
AI now joins the company of other non-governmental organizations targeted by the Government Communications Headquarters – or GCHQ, the U.K. equivalent of the U.S.’s National Security Agency. Those include Unicef and Médecins du Monde, according to top-secret documents released by The Guardian in December 2013.
As many international NGOs (e.g.: Human Rights First, Front Line, the Human Rights Foundation, ISHR and several trade unions) have already welcomed the release of two human rights defenders in Swaziland, it is perhaps interesting to give the local take on it through an article in the Swaziland Observer of 2 July 2015 at hand of Noxolo Nkabinde: “Bheki, Thulani sacrifice not in vain– SCCCO”.
The Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civic Organisations (SCCCO) says the sacrifices made by Nation Magazine Editor Bheki Makhubu and human rights lawyer Thulani Maseko were not in vain..“When they wrote those articles, Bheki and Thulani could not have imagined the events that were to follow. They, as concerned members of the public and as human rights defenders, were simply articulating the sentiments of a nation, frustrated and rapidly losing faith in the justice system. As we continue to stand with them, we believe the pain they and their families have gone through is another building-block towards freedom – their sacrifice has not been in vain,” SCCCO said in their statement. They added that their charge, arrest, conviction and imprisonment were never justified and believed they were vindicated.
Interestingly the NGO gives big credits to the judiciary “We commend the judges of the Supreme Court for this ruling. We welcome this, amongst their first acts in office, as a sign that perhaps our judiciary is turning a corner towards the better path of justice. The past few years have increasingly eroded our confidence in the judiciary – the impeachment proceedings of the former chief justice exposed but a fragment of the rot that had set in the judiciary. But as we all know, that situation has been created and nurtured over time, and it’s predilection for injustice has its roots in an environment that is hostile to free speech, in particular the speech that dissents with the status quo. And so our rejoicing is bitter-sweet: this is not about the individuals who previously occupied and abused judicial office; nor is it about their heinous conduct during this and other cases – the problem of the judiciary, just as with the other structures of governance, is systemic, and our new judges and their successors will remain vulnerable to outside influence as long as the structural flaws are not addressed.”
This was also an opportunity to restore both the dignity of and confidence in the judiciary. It could also serve as an opportunity to develop and grow the country’s jurisprudence in a way that promotes a culture of human rights and good democratic governance.
The SCCCO anticipates an era of respect for the rule of law under the new Supreme Court Judges Qinisile Mabuza and Mbutfo Mamba: “We note in the appointments the presence of judges such as Qinisile Mabuza and Mbutfo Mamba who have a proven track record of fairness and we look forward to an era where such judges are not punished for being principled…We call on all the judicial officers, even as they have taken the judicial oath/affirmation of office, to also recall the following constitutional provisions: Whereas all the branches of government are the Guardians of the Constitution, it is necessary that the Courts be the ultimate Interpreters of the Constitution”.
The article adds with a sad note that in the meantime the Swaziland Office of the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) has been closed due to lack of funding.
The International Service for Human Rights [ISHR] and the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre [BHRRC] organize a well-stocked panel on “Business and the protection of human rights defenders” on 14 July 2015 (12h30-14h30) in London: DLA Piper, 3 Noble Street, London. RSVP by Friday 10 July. The discussion.. Read the rest of this entry »
“Attacks on higher education are at crisis levels”
Today, 23 June 2015, Scholars at Risk [SAR] released the first report of its Academic Freedom Monitoring Project at the United Nations in Geneva,: “Free to Think”. The culmination of four years of monitoring and analysis by SAR staff and researchers around the world, the report analyzes 333 attacks on higher education communities in 65 countries from January 2011 to May 2015, demonstrating the pressing need to raise awareness and document attacks on higher education: Read the rest of this entry »
MEA 2015 nominees: Robert Aung, Ahmed Mansoor, Asmaou Diallo
A very early “save the date’ announcement: those who need to travel from far away may want to note that the 2015 Martin Ennals Award Ceremonywill take place on 6October, at 18h30 at Uni-Dufour, Geneva. It is the event that opens Human Rights Week hosted by the University of Geneva from 6 – 9 October.
The laureate will be selected from among the three 2015 finalists, shown in the picture above: Read the rest of this entry »
Yesterday (18 June 2015) Amnesty Internationalannounced something that is (rather will be) something new in human rights education: a series of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). Who knows, the horrible acronym may one day be as normal as HRDs or AI itself. For this to come about Amnesty International is partnering with edX, a global leader in online education founded by Harvard University and MIT. The first MOOCs will be available later this year. The free online courses will be designed by human rights and education experts from across Amnesty International.
The link between human rights defenders and the exploitation of natural resources was the focus of this year’s report (18 June 20150 by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, Maina Kiai. He called for a new treaty binding businesses to respect fundamental human rights, and for States and corporations to fully engage with civil society organizations in the context of natural resource exploitation.
“Corporations play an outsized role in the decision-making processes about exploitation of natural resources. But they are not subject to legally binding human rights obligations,” Mr. Kiai told the UN Human Rights Council during the presentation of his latest report. “It is time to address this issue more robustly; corporations must not escape responsibility to safeguard human rights.”
“I am aware that some would rather strengthen compliance with the Guiding Principles than have a binding treaty. But this should not be an either/or matter: Both should be pursued to protect human rights.”
The Special Rapporteur also highlighted States’ responsibility to recognize civil society organizations, including affected communities, as key actors in the context of natural resource exploitation. “Authorities endeavour to silence individuals and associations that express opposition to natural resource exploitation processes,” the independent expert said.
In his report, the Special Rapporteur argues that States’ and corporations pervasive disregard of communities and associations’ input in the natural resources sector is counterproductive and divisive, and is likely contributing to an erosion of confidence in the world’s prevailing economic system.
“The rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association are instrumental in achieving sustainable and mutually beneficial exploitation of natural resources,” he said. “These rights help foster increased transparency and accountability in the exploitation of resources and inclusive engagement throughout the decision-making chain.”
During his presentation, Mr. Kiai also warned that authorities have increasingly sought to stifle expressions of criticism and opposition by cracking down, often with unnecessary force, on peaceful protests; arresting, harassing, prosecuting and imprisoning human rights defenders; enacting restrictive legislation on associations; and interfering with the operations of civil society organizations.
“Peaceful protests are banned from sites where natural resource exploitation takes place and the situation is not any better in relation to the right to freedom of association,” he noted. “Individuals and associations who express opposition to natural resource exploitation processes are vilified as ‘anti-development’, ‘unpatriotic’, and even as ‘enemies of the State’”.
“This intolerance is reflected in countries in the global North, and the global South,” the Special Rapporteur said. “Nevertheless, I remain optimistic because of the incredible courage and determination of activists and ordinary people who refuse to be cowed or defeated, even if it means paying with their lives.”
On 26 May 2015, at the 2015 Oslo Freedom Forum, Thai journalist Pravit Rojanaphruk describes his fight for democracy in his home country following the May 2014 military coup. Talking about his own arrest, Rojanaphruk denounces the limitations to the right to assembly, expression and movement in Thailand, as well as the regime’s efforts to build the illusion of a happy Thailand. Rojanaphruk concludes his presentation by reminding us that tolerance and dialogue are essential if Thailand is to become a democracy again.
OMCT and FIDH (within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders) in cooperation with the ISHR organise on 16 June (16:00-17:30, room XXII, Palais des Nations – Geneva) a side event on Attacks and Reprisals against Human Rights Defenders, focusing on the issue of reprisalsand accountability. As readers know by now, I believe that this is the topic which the human rights movement HAS TO TAKE more serious lest all progress of the last decades will be lost. My blog contains quite a few posts on reprisals (https://thoolen.wordpress.com/tag/reprisals/), but the key one is: https://thoolen.wordpress.com/2014/03/13/zero-tolerance-for-states-that-take-reprisals-against-hrds-lets-up-the-ante/.
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 